I'm pretty sure that if I buy a Scott Turow hardcover, I can then rip it from its binding, shove it through the scanner and make my own PDF. From that point on, I can paste it all back together, cross out Turow's name and write "BY TIM CUSHING" all over the cover and put it in the 25-cent bin at the next garage sale, all without fear of litigious reprisal.

There's a fanfic story in there somewhere... involving a beer glass... or something.

An artist decides to take the bold step of going royalty-free in order to see where it ends up and what the world makes of it. Previously I had never heard of Shuho Sata. Now I have. See what I did there?

Perhaps the studios are recognizing that they're better off no longer throwing good money after bad.

Since I travel a lot for work, the news that hotel locks are easily hackable has got me concerned. I already have to hide my PVC suit from the maid and now this?! Needless to say I'll be checking my hotel bill extras for '1x electronic door lock - $50'.

Whilst on the subject of security... this week Mike wrote an excellent post which was about a scientist who is a bank robber. Apparently he was so good at it Chris Nolan contacted him about making a movie about his life. I didn't really read it, I just skimmed the post to the last paragraph where he wrote "this other story that Cerf told at a different Moth event about his life as a bank robber".

Speaking of DMCA notices, no sooner than was LendInk back up and running, they received a 'Congratulations' card.. no wait... it was a DMCA notice! Timothy's final summary is what made it hit my favorites list however;

As an author myself, I can't tell my peers how liberating it is to not give a damn about anyone who wishes to share my work. It alleviates me of all the drama against readers. It alleviates me of all potential missteps against legitimate services. It alleviates me of the responsibility for any ripple effects those missteps might cause. Have I read every word of the contracts I've signed? Yes. Do I understand every word of them. Of course not. Because I don't have to.

Is it just me or is spending time with the TSA like spending time with your parents? If they're not criticizing your choice of fashion, they're drilling you for every little detail about what your future plans are... who you're seeing... are you an American citizen.... Now as someone who has had their arse felt more than once by the border agency divas, I know the humiliation that can come from a border couture faux pas. But when they start smiling and asking you about your trip, that's when it gets really creepy, as summarized by Tim C;

Here's the problem, though. It's nearly impossible for the average human being to chat normally with someone who has the power to indefinitely detain or otherwise screw up their travel plans for any number of nebulous "violations." There's no such thing as an innocuous or friendly question when it comes to an agency with a reputation for acting irresponsibly, vindictively and ignorantly, depending on the situation. No one is ever going to feel comfortable just handing out additional personal information, no matter how anecdotal, to someone who can use any misstep as an excuse to search, detain or otherwise inconvenience anyone and everyone.

Is it really going to matter that your files are not transferable when Apple or Amazon close up shop and banish all your purchased content to the nether world of digital services? That is a more pressing question. While you may live to a ripe old age, the services and technologies you use typically have a far shorter shelf life.

One wonders why Disney, amongst others, are not strongly objecting to this? Why, almost their entire catalogue of movies would be wiped out if it was applied retrospectively!

And then there's other movies...

Batman might never have begun!No home to go back to for Dorothy and Toto!Brewster would never have got to spend his millions!No one watches the Watchmen!No outer limits, no twilight zone to get lost in!

YouTube would probably be reduced to about 10 users. We'd lose the excellent Cinema Sins and Screen Junkies for a start...

and what about music?

Stevie Wonder - no Happy Birthdays to you!Ray Charles wouldn't have a woman!Lynyrd Skynyrd wouldn't have found Alabama so sweet!Vanilla Ice might have been plain old Vanilla!Beach Boys - No surfing for you!

But I suppose one consolation is that 50 Shades of Grey wouldn't exist.

I think the core failure of this from the outset is not having representation for the public. As history has shown time and again, there's nothing to stop this select group from overreaching their purpose and becoming sole arbitrator of what is or isn't a copyrighted work.

The big publishers will make sure they can grab as much orphan works as possible, whilst diligently protecting their own (remixed from orphan) works - it's like putting the fox in charge of the chickens!

A better way of doing this would have been to have an open registry where anyone who finds an orphan work and wants to use it must register publicly and it should be available for, say 30 days, for someone to claim ownership. That way any member of the public can be involved.

There should also be a requirement for all publishers to provide a source (author/orphan), by law, on any work they use - which I gather is the main fear for photographers.

Ultimately, though, it would be easier if we just go back to registration for copyrights. In a world where millions of photos exist of the Eiffel Tower, how could anyone claim (prove) their copyright on a specific photo (unless they put something unique in it).

Technology has provided the means for making your work very easy to replicate, but it has also taken an audience that was once local and made it global. It has also made your work very easy to produce in the first place.

In the 1983 you had to pay upfront expense for a gallery, rely on advertising and local word of mouth; maybe have 1 or 2 people forge your work and 10,000 people may buy it.

In 2013 you zero costs for a gallery, can be seen worldwide, and 1 or 2 million people may copy your work but 100,000 people may buy it - there is no loss, just increase in piracy from people who would never have seen or bought anyway.

Should copyright even exist on things that can be created, copied and distributed worldwide within minutes?

Perhaps, rather than allowing lawyers to make mountains of money out of grammatical molehills, a better method of identifying something patentable is to simply have to present it physically.

If you can only describe something in order to obtain a patent it is not an "invention" it is an abstract concept or an "idea". Ideas were never intended to be patentable subject matter, yet because fools have issued patents for such, then here we are paying people to squabble over rhetoric and semantics.

Anyone can do that, just look at the title of my comment - it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, then you can ignore this comment entirely, as such.

I don't know why this particular OOTB post has been flagged... it adds to the discussion and is not abusive or trollish.

If we want to foster good discussion at Techdirt then we shouldn't just flag posts willy nilly because it's come from someone who has acted with trollish behavior in the past.

For the record I think OOTB's last sentence is accurate - people change, money also changes them and Craig Newmark does seem to have become petty and vindictive. I know if I was on the receiving end of one of his petulant lawsuits I would certainly scoff anyone who suggested otherwise.

And disagreeing with minor points in the article is not trolling behavior either, so if people are going to flag OOTB's post above, then flag mine too!

Why is it not apparent to the courts that these server seizures are being conducted and handled by the civilian plaintiffs?

In criminal cases, do the police let the victim conduct the investigation and view the evidence? Does an angry relative get to dust for prints on the murder weapon and determine who the murderer was?

In civil cases, do we let the aggrieved take action before a judgement? If my neighbours conifers are blocking the sunlight do I get to 'seize' them by cutting them down, then go to court? Or do the courts decide first if they are a menace - that I should be compensated and the conifers removed?

This is really showing up the police as a bunch of incompetent no-nothings when it comes to modern technology. They would never approach a robbery or assault in the same way by accepting the victims sole testimony as enough evidence to convict.

But in computer 'crime', they let the 'expert' gather evidence. The same 'expert' who tells us a crime has been committed in the first place, but we don't actually know if it has or not - which is why we leave it to the 'expert'!

Is that like a "first-shoes maximalist" for someone who likes to wear shoes when they leave the house?

Or are you just borrowing from contextual and relevant terms like "big content" (for large media conglomerates) and "copyright maximalist" for those who lobby for excessive maximum copyright terms and enforcement?

"On the other hand, it's quite reasonable to require your submission to come with transparency over sources -- kind of like in the academic world, where copying is essential, but credit equally so."

:

This, essentially. The new image is quite creative in itself and it's clear that the contest winner had some inspiration that Kevin Collins lacked - or he could have modified his pic, submitted it and won instead.

That's not to take away from Collins' amazing photograph. But both 'artists' have contributed something - Collins took the photo and the contest winner took it a step further - this is essentially what Disney does with it's movies and no-one bats an eyelid because "it's Disney"/"they're old works"/"they're public domain" (take you pick).

The flaw here is not in the reproduction of CC work - it's the non-attribution - but did the entry form even allow for providing an attributable source?

The world has yet to adjust to an age in which copying is as easy as "cp" and some artists want to give away for free but still be attributed.

Clearly the big-content houses realise they are losing control - but I wouldn't count them out just yet, I'm eager to see what they come up with in an attempt to redress this uneven shift against their business model.

For example, anyone noticed how things like "digital" rights have emerged without the intervention or rewriting of copyright laws?

'Digital' rights. 'Movie' rights. 'Print' rights. 'Audio' rights... all a content-conglomerate has to do is create a new perceived service and assign it "rights". I wonder if before long we'll start to see things such as 'cloud rights', 'mobile rights' (already partially-implemented on YouTube), '3D rights' and perhaps, in the future, "holographic reproduction rights".

What happens if the movie is a big success, then the studio commissions artists and writers to produce graphic novels and books of the movie (with differing plot points and story-lines). I wouldn't put it past them at all to try and subvert the author in this way - in fact I fully expect it - they have been shown to happily spend millions on lawyers to argue nuanced rights issues in court.

Sorry to be pessimistic, about a largely positive deal, but my cynicism has served me well over the years in preempting the moves of others whose interests do not align with my own.

Even bigger surprise, vast majority of muslims around the world didn't even notice or care.

Want a litmus test of how prejudiced Western media is against non-western culture? A few muslims somewhere in Iran protest America - IRAN PROTESTS AGAINST AMERICA!

It's a bit if Westboro Baptists were to protest a gay funeral and media around the world reported AMERICA PROTESTS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS!

It's about time the media stopped treating isolated groups of individuals as though they speak for the whole country or region. Brown people are capable of individual thought and disagreement with their government too!